Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership

被引：0

作者：

Burke N.N. ^{[1
,2
]}

Stewart D. ^{[3
]}

Tierney T. ^{[4
]}

Worrall A. ^{[5
]}

Smith M. ^{[6
]}

Elliott J. ^{[7
]}

Beecher C. ^{[1
,2
]}

Devane D. ^{[1
,2
,8
]}

Biesty L. ^{[2
]}

机构：

[1] Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway, Galway

[2] School of Nursing and Midwifery, Aras Moyola, University of Galway, Galway

[3] Honorary Professor, University of Galway, Galway

[4] Public Co-Author, Health Research Board Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland, Galway

[5] Public Co-Author, Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Staffordshire, Staffordshire

[6] Public Co-Author, Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, Ottawa

[7] Public Co-Author, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, Galway

[8] Health Research Board Trials Methodology Research Network, University of Galway, Galway

来源：

Research Involvement and Engagement | / 9卷 / 1期

关键词：

Co-production; Evidence synthesis; Methodology; Mutual learning; Patient engagement; Priority-setting partnership; Public and patient involvement; Rapid review;

D O I：

10.1186/s40900-023-00438-1

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research. Methods: Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis. Results: The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table.Subtheme 1.1—Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making;Subtheme 1.2—Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2We need support and space at the table.Subtheme 2.1—Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement;Subtheme 2.2—Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together.Subtheme 3.1—Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building;Subtheme 3.2—Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement. Conclusions: This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context. © 2023, The Author(s).

引用

共 38 条

[1]

Staniszewska S., Adebajo A., Barber R., Beresford P., Brady L.-M., Brett J., Elliott J., Et al., Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact, Int J Consum Stud, 35, pp. 628-632, (2011)

[2]

Briefing Notes for Researchers – April 2021, (2021)

[3]

McMenamin R., Isaksen J., Manning M., Tierney E., Distinctions and blurred boundaries between qualitative approaches and public and patient involvement (PPI) in research, Int J Speech-Language Pathol, pp. 1-12, (2022)

[4]

Greenhalgh T., Hinton L., Finlay T., MacFarlane A., Fahy N., Clyde B., Chant A., Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot, Health Expect, 22, 4, pp. 785-801, (2019)

[5]

Tierney E., McEvoy R., O'Reilly-de Brun M., de Brun T., Okonkwo E., Rooney M., Dowrick C., Rogers A., MacFarlane A., A critical analysis of the implementation of service user involvement in primary care research and health service development using normalization process theory, Health Expect, 19, pp. 501-515, (2016)

[6]

Beecher C., Toomey E., Maeso B., Whiting C., Stewart D., Worrall A., Elliott J., Et al., Priority III: Top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership, J Clin Epidemiol, (2022)

[7]

Shahid A., Lalani I.M., Rosgen B.K., Sept B.G., Longmore S., Parsons Leigh J., Stelfox H.T., Fiest K.M., A scoping review of methods to measure and evaluate citizen engagement in health research, Res Involv Engagem, 8, 1, (2022)

[8]

Russell J., Fudge N., Greenhalgh T., The impact of public involvement in health research: what are we measuring? Why are we measuring it? Should we stop measuring it?, Res Involv Engagem, 6, (2020)

[9]

Knowles S., Allen D., Donnelly A., Flynn K., Gallacher K., Lewis A., Et al., More than a method: trusting relationships, productive tensions, and two-way learning as mechanisms of authentic co-production, Res Involv Engagem, 7, 1, pp. 1-14, (2021)

[10]

Staley K., Barron D., Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation?, Res Involv Engagem, 5, (2019)

← 1 2 3 4 →